WG GES meeting, 27-28 September 2011, Brussels, DOC 6.a

1. WG GES meeting, 27-28 September 2011, Brussels, DOC 6.a OSPAR Beach Litter Monitoring Germany @ D. M. Fleet First draft of advise from the TSG Marine Litter on the determination of Good Environmental Status and target setting for Descriptor 10 MSFD

2. Sources Pictures @J. v. Franeker & P. Hutner

3. Composition Figure 1: Composition based on the number of items of marine litter collected during the OSPAR “Beach Litter Monitoring Program” along the southern North Sea coast (2002-2008)

4. Harm Visible Pictures @ Salco de Wolf (EcoMare), J. v. Franeker & S. Werner Unvisible

5. GES is achieved, when • Litter and ist degradation products • present in, and entering into EU waters • do not cause harm to marine life at the • individual, population, community and • ecosystem level. • Litter and its degradation products • present in, and entering into EU waters • do not facilitate the introduction and • dispersal of alien species. • Litter and its degradation products • present in, and entering into EU waters • do not pose direct and indirect risks • to human health. • Litter and its degradation products • present in, and entering into EU water • do not lead to negative socio-economic • impacts. Picture@ E.M. Hübner

6. Points to be considered for achieving GES • Defining GES should be possible on the basis of litter • levels in a pristine area (Arctic seas). Calculating a • mean litter level for an area could provide a baseline • level for evaluating GES and measured trends in litter • levels. • More than one indicator required to assess GES for • litter pollution to cover the different marine • compartments and the different aspects of • pollution (e.g. smothering of corals, microplastics in • organisms). • Metrics are not yet available for evaluating most of • the biological impacts. In their absence trend indicators • (e.g. the amount of litter on the sea floor) should be • considered for evaluating GES. All four indicators are • suitable as trend indicators. • Greater North Sea: OSPAR EcoQO for plastics in • stomachs of Northern Fulmars. Additional • indicator species for other marine regions and • additional impacts need to be defined. • … Picture @ P. Quint

7. Setting targets • Trend-setting target value for the reduction of the input of ML needed • Approach should be comparable with reduction targets for eutrophication • and/or contaminants as set in the past by NSCs, adopted by OSPAR & HELCOM: • reductions of nutrient inputs (political 50%-goal) and contaminants from • riverine inflow (also 50%, for four particulary problematic substances 70%) • within 10 years • Handling of different material categories of marine litter should be aligned • with the „cessation“ target for contaminants set by the 4th NSC and adopted • by Regional Sea Conventions to pursue the objective of preventing pollution • of the maritime area by continously reducing discharges, emissions and • losses with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations near background values • for naturally occuring substances and close to zero for for synthetic man-made • substances • As an analogous generation target for ML specific types of litter (such as • synthetic materials) known to harm or damage marine life & habitats, • causing socio-economic impacts and/or risk human health should no longer • be introduced into the marine environment by 2020 with the ultimate aim of • achieving concentrations close to zero

8. Setting operational source-related targets • Article 10 asks for the establishment of environmental targets that will guide • progress towards GES; Annex IV outlines chracteristics for setting these • e.t. including 2(c) „operational targets relating to concrete implementation • measures to support their achievement.“ • Operational targets cannot substitute environmental targets, but they can • be helpful in defining soure-related measures • OSPAR beach litter monitoring has identified indicator items, which relate to • particular sources (use-categories):

9. Relevant use-categories in each marine region/ subregion must be identified, • indicator items help in identifying trends within use-categories Shipping Military vessels Passenger ships Pleasure boats Merchant ships Fishing boats Litter thrown overboard by passengers Galley waste Operational litter Fishing related debris Sweet/food packaging Cigarette buts & packets/lighters Plastic bags Drinks bottles Cleaner bottles Cosmetics bottles Wooden pallets Strapping bands Paint tins & brushes Rubber gloves Fish boxes Nets, line, net pieces

10. Examples of potential targets • Indicator 10.1.1: „Trends in the amount of litter washed ashore • and/or deposited on coastlines, including analysis of its • composition, spatial distribution and, where possible source.“ • [x%] overall reduction in the number of visible (>5mm)[new] • litter items on coastlines from 2012 levels (as submitted in the • initial assessments) by 2020. • [x%] reduction in the number of plastic fishing/sanitary litter • items on caostlines from 2012 levels (as submitted in the initial • assessments) by 2020.

11. Indicator 10.1.2: „Trends in the amount of litter in the water column (including floating at the surface) and deposited on the sea-floor, including analysis of ist composition, spatial distribution and, where possible, source.“ • Overall reduction in the number of litter items (1 cm in the longest • dimension as applied by NOAA) per square meter on nationally defined • affected areas for surface litter • Overall reduction in the number of litter items (1 cm in the longest • dimension as applied by NOAA) per square meter on the sea bed as • measured by trawling, and by diving in selected shallow waters, from • 2012 (as submitted in the initial assessments) levels by 2020 • Overall reduction in the number of fishing related items (1 cm in the • longest dimension as applied by NOAA) in the sea bed as measures • by trawling on shelves and by diving in selected shallow waters, from • 2012 (as submitted in the initial assessments) in 2020

12. Indicator 10.1.2: „Trends in the amount, distribution and, where possible, composition of micro-particles (in particular micro-plastics).“ • Before any target can be set, sufficient monitoring should be carried and a baseline • should be established • Microplastics are partly introduced directly through cosmetic and cleaning products, • as a replacement for sand in sandblasting or in form of pre-production pellets for • further production – further accumulation can be avoided, e.g. through substitutions • within the products themselves. • Indicator 10.1.2: „Trends in the amount and composition of litter ingested by marine animals (e.g. stomach analysis).“ • Undated target for the Greater North Sea: „less than 10% of Northern Fulmars • should be allowed to have more than 0.1g plastic in their stomach.“ • Copying the OSPAR EcoQO to GES is not directly possible for areas where fulmars • do not occur • Simular to beach litter options it might be better to set targets in terms of e.g. • X% annual reduction in the abundance of ingested litter • TSG ML tries to identify suitable monitoring species as well as • reference values against which such reductions should be measured

13. Temporal and spatial scale of targets • Any assessment of ML should consider short term variations • caused by meterological and/or hydrodynamic events and seasonal • fluctuations which will influence our ability to detect underlying trends • ML can take a long time to degrade – even if all inputs stop, large • items will decrease but further degrade, abundance of small • items could possibly increase • Due to the persistence of some materials, time scales for monitoring • must be chosen to cover both, times of accumulation as well as recovery • Aggregation of assessment for the evaluation at sub-regional or even • regional scale will be different for the various parameters – for example • beach litter survey can be applied to the European spatial scale while • deep sea-floor monitoring is more relevant at smaller scales and over • longer periods

14. Thanks for your attention!